TODAY'S TOPIC:

Audacity of Propaganda,
Part II

Part I
Part III

by
Natalia J. Garland

Print Version

A simple definition of propaganda could go as follows: the systematic spreading of a doctrine or cause, usually biased and misleading. For today's study, I will put forth that propaganda can be spread in a gradual but steady manner, and that personal style and charisma can popularize or even glamourize that which is biased and misleading. And, I will add that the implementation of the propagandized material necessitates the elimination of the 'old' foundations, traditions, and heritage.

During the 2008 presidential election, for example, the majority of voters must have agreed with, minimized, or misunderstood statements and ideas similar to the following: We are going to fundamentally change America. We are going to spread the wealth around. Christians are people who cling to their religion and their guns. My grandmother was a typical white person afraid of black men. I am a citizen of the world. America is a mean place.

Now, if we were to briefly analyze even a few of the many speeches by Barack Obama, both before and after his election to president, we might find some basic material for an inquiry about propaganda. The simple doctrine would be the Golden Rule; and the simple causes would be an ongoing civil rights movement, collectivity, and global disarmament. The purpose would be to establish a new or transformed American government and, perhaps ultimately, a new global order.

Although the above categories may seem general and open to interpretation, such generality enables the propaganda to appear reasonable to all educational and income levels. These categories have a moral or righteous appeal on the surface, but also possibly have underlying political structures which may not be compatible with our Constitution, our economy, and our values. Many of Obama's words, as words and only words, as words without specific meanings or follow-up actions, carry a certain attraction when not scrutinized for details.

Let's look at some excepts from Obama's speeches. These excerpts are representative of Obama's political themes; he has stated these ideas repeatedly throughout his political career. The excerpts are taken out of context: in most cases the preceding and following paragraphs have not been quoted. However, the themes are standard Obamian. And, I will put some of the quoted material back into context in order to further show the likelihood of my conclusions.

My purpose is not to assess President Obama's motives or character, or to criticize him from the viewpoint that he leans toward socialism. Rather, I will attempt to uncover and understand his philosophy of government in conjunction with what appear to be certain observable personality or stylistic traits (while avoiding actual diagnosis). I will attempt to look at the way in which he presents his philosophy, whether he has used propaganda, and whether he has kept his campaign promises.

In Obamian thought, it would seem there is a rejection or revision of the historical past rather than a careful preservation of the documents, traditions, and heritage upon which America was founded and according to which America continues to become that more perfect union. Obama thinks the Constitution requires a broader vision and that it can be interpreted in many ways. On the surface, these words sound inclusive and democratic. Beneath the surface, though, we do not know exactly what Obama means or how his words would be given application in real life. Upon examination of the above quotations on the Constitution, on judges and empathy, we discover absolutely no concrete details on the meaning and application of these words. Taken literally, if the Constitution can be interpreted in many ways, then it is possible that at some point it will be totally transformed into a new document.

Obama talked about fundamentally changing the way Washington works. Yet, after his election to President, he chose his Cabinet members from a host of Washington insiders. Obama did not fulfill his campaign promise. In fact, he did exactly what he said he would not do. For more discussion on Obama's selection of Washington insiders, see my essay A Fleeting Political Movement, Part I.

When speaking to the Arizona State graduates of 2009, Obama used words and terms such as perspective, attitude, an approach to life, to question conventional wisdom, and to rethink old dogmas. Obama told the the graduates, "It's clear that we need to build a new foundation..." The political and the educational seem blurred together or confused in this speech. No one can argue with Obama's advice to do what is meaningful and what helps others, but this good advice seems stirred in with his own political goal to build a new foundation in America.

Obama further told the graduates that they were graduating at a time when "... the very foundations of our lives, the old order has been shaken, the old ideas and institutions have crumbled, and a new generation is called upon to remake the world." What?! Exactly what has crumbled? The U.S. Constitution? The Republican Party? Christianity? Hope and change? Is Obama referring to the impact of 9/11? Or to the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement? What is he talking about? To put this into the context of the whole speech, Obama went on to talk about American business institutions and get-rich-quick schemes--so, we might conclude that the old order is American capitalism, or the corruption of American captialism, or at least the American economy and prosperity. But, this much is certain: Obama's goal is to remake America.

Let's continue upward through the list of quotations. Obama talked about abortion to the graduates of Notre Dame University. He told them, "...we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision..." In other words, the quality of empathy or pseudo-empathy for the woman, for the mother-to-be, is our human commonality and our new point of unity--despite the wrongness or rightness of abortion, despite the truth or untruth about when life begins. What about empathy for women who regret having had an abortion? What about women who live the rest of their lives guilt-ridden? What about empathy for the unborn children?

[NOTE 1: There are people with certain personality conditions, such as narcissistic and antisocial, who are not capable of feeling empathy. Quite contrary to empathy, the narcissist has no use for anyone who does not reflect his sense of self-importance.]

[NOTE 2: Regarding abortion and empathy, President Obama's first executive action after his inauguration was to sign what is known as the "Mexico City Policy:" a document that reversed the ban on providing funds for international abortion groups. This ban has gone in and out of effect with each Democrat and Republican president since Ronald Reagan.]

Some of my quoted material is from Obama's speeches to graduating students. For more discussion on how Obama views education, see my essays Rebuilding the American Educational Process, Part I, Part II, and Part III.

Before moving on, let's talk a little more about empathy and pseudo-empathy. Empathy a is personal quality. Some people are more empathically oriented than others. Empathy can be learned, and it can increase over time with maturity. If empathy were to be emphasized as a process of government, then we would have to separate empathy from individual opinion, religious doctrine, and perhaps even from the U.S. Constitution. There would have to be a standard for the application of empathy, a measurement of how much and toward whom and under what circumstances: all of which is impossible. Empathy is not a 1960's flower-power concept.

The problem with what appears to be Obamian empathy is that it is a pseudo-empathy. Pseudo-empathy is used as a commonality to unite people and as a substitute for or an evasion of differences of opinion as well as issues of right and wrong. Pseudo-empathy involves a neutralization of morals, a value-free attitude toward life, a refusal to define good-better-best solutions to problems. It is ultra-tolerance disguised as fairness. It is not a live-and-let-live approach, but a politically-correct inclusion of and tolerance for like-minded people. A pro-life woman, for example, who kept her baby despite hardships, might not be shown empathy for her decision-making process or for her religious stance.

If narcissists are incapable of real empathy and, just for the sake of argument, if we had a narcissistic president, then it would follow that the purpose of any so-called empathy would be to further the political agenda of that president. It would make sense, then, to label that tactic as pseudo-empathy. Okay, let's move on now.

When Obama spoke at the Fort Hood Memorial Service, he mentioned the heroes of the past but only as an introduction to what might be interpreted as a reinforcement of the narcissistic present moment. In other words, the heroes of the past were great, but those of the present are greater. Although this might seem to validate the true heroism and sacrifices of today's military, the beneath-the-surface content could denote a reflection of the narcissistic self. Today's heroes must be greater, because they are a reflection of myself and of my leadership. Americans do not have to look to the past, but only to the moment, to me, to my flow of words which are me.

[NOTE 3: Although President Obama attended the memorial service, Nov. 10th, at Fort Hood, he did not immediately go to Fort Hood after hearing about the shootings. Former President George W. Bush, however, went to Fort Hood the very next day, Nov.6th. Bush lives near Fort Hood, about an hour away, and drove himself there.]

Henceforth, I will use the term narcissistic self-reflection to mean a reflection of the narcissistic self (not to be confused with self-reflection as an introspective quality and process). In other words, this type of narcissist requires proof, validation, or reinforcement of his internal sense of a grandiose self. This reinforcement comes from, or is reflected from, people and events in the external world.

We might say that narcissistic self-reflection would find its greatest potential for completion in a political/multicultural organization of the world. To accomplish this, therefore, everyone must contribute to the new collectivity, to this process of fundamentally transforming America, to the wellbeing of or, more precisely, to the politically correct view of the global human family. You can find your own path, and figure out what's right for you, as Anita Dunn said in her speech to high school graduates (see Part I of this essay)--but your way should nevertheless conform to the collectivity. This process or journey is not the same as cooperation or collaboration, but involves the synchronized works of oneness as inspired by The One, by The Citizen of the World.

Such worldwide narcissistic self-reflection is an extreme requirement. Not all politicians exhibit this type of narcissism. For example, the concept of a global citizen is in contrast to a remark made by President John F. Kennedy in 1963. When Kennedy said, "Ich bin ein Berliner," (I am a Berliner), he was not was equating or including this sensitivity, consciousness, or alignment with his American citizenship (or with any global citizenship). Kennedy was identifying with, expressing solidarity with, and giving support to the struggles and goals of the Germans at that time. Let's pause and go back to those days.

Next, we are all fishermen. In other words, we are all global citizens, bound together, seeking the same goals (albeit in our own way), and inferring what the President believes to be important to the collectivity. As fishermen, we are leveled off politically, culturally, and spiritually. We are all the same--not because we were created equal by God, not because we have all sinned--but because we are reduced to the most vague commonalities. We are objects. Moreover, we are objects to fulfill the dreams of and reflect the grandiosity of The One.

The above assemblage is not contrived. It is threaded together from words and themes constantly expressed by Obama. It may not be totally accurate, but it is certainly feasible, and it is compatible with Obama's observable presentation of himself. Obama's style is to say something positive, obvious, or standard, and then to take it back, to scramble it in with something else, to add more words that alter the whole meaning of what was originally said. The only way to make sense of it is to pick out words and basic themes from the verbiage--especially those that have been repeated across several speeches--and then attempt to re-assemble the main message in a cohesive manner. When Obama speaks, every word is tonally delivered as important and urgent. It is essential to read his words apart from the tonal impact in order to analyze meaning.

When addressing civil rights issues, Obama often sounds as though he were living in the 1950's or 1960's. While he recognizes that much has been accomplished, his recognition is always qualified by further remarks that there is still much to be done. Moreover, he seems to stir the current economic crisis into his civil rights momentum. Since women and minorities have gained civil rights, and since there are laws in place to protect these groups, Obama can only be referring to homosexuals and illegal immigrants regarding any further progress to be made in civil rights. Or, we might suspect him of inciting or giving credence to a neo-racism or an artificial civil rights movement for the 2000's. Women, blacks and other minorities, homosexuals, illegal immigrants: these groups seem to be regarded as in the same category when, in reality, there are significant differences.

In his speech to the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, Obama went on to talk about unemployment, healthcare, energy, and infrastructure. The impression is that these are all civil rights issues, or somehow akin to the cause of civil rights. Then, only toward the end of the speech, he said: "It demands that we fight discrimination, whatever form it may come. That means we fight discrimination against gays and lesbians, and we make common cause to reform our immigration system." Now, blacks, homosexuals, illegal immigrants, the working class, the unemployed and the uninsured are muddled up.

No one should be discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, age, etc.--we know that. Most Americans agree with and live according to tolerance or appreciation of diversity in unity. It is written in our laws. If anyone is discriminated against, they can resort to laws as well as rules and ethics as appropriate within their workplace or school or wherever the discrimination has occurred. To present discrimination as still a major problem, "We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar," is biased, misleading, perhaps inciting, and definitely condescending.

Regarding homosexuals, Americans must decide how to manage the issues of military service and marriage. The issue of military service seems more within the civil rights realm than that of marriage--unless the marriages are performed as civil unions in civil courts and not in mainstream churches. If mainstream churches are forced to perform homosexual marriage ceremonies, then the rights and beliefs of those religions will have been violated. Churches that refuse to comply with any such mandate would probably be accused of hate crimes. This would be religious persecution--and this was not mentioned by Obama even though he spoke in a church.

[NOTE 4: Recently, ten churches were burnt down in Texas, as a result of arson. So far, these incidents have not been classified as hate crimes. Most of the churches have white congregations. Tom Crowley, spokesman for the Dallas branch of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said, "It doesn't have to be a hate crime," presumably because the churches are of different denominations or non-denominational. One can only imagine if the churches had been all-black, or if the arson had been against Muslim mosques, there would have been outcries of hate crime.]

Regarding illegal immigration, American citizenship or a pathway to citizenship is not a civil rights issue. To confuse the naturalization procedure with civil rights is biased and misleading. Illegal immigration is an issue of law and national sovereignty. No one has a civil right to cross the border illegally, take up residence in illegally sanctuaried cities, and then demand amnesty and/or citizenship. This is an insult to the slaves and to every minority person who ever truly suffered and struggled for human freedom and justice. What audacity to present this distorted precept in a black church!

Regarding healthcare reform, there should be intelligent and transparent debate on whether healthcare is a civil right or a matter of individual responsibility. Such debate should include experts from outside Washington, D.C. Many people agree that the following reforms are needed: coverage for pre-existing conditions, coverage across states, and tort reform. Beyond that, Americans must decide the role of government in their lives and how to fund any expansion of government-based services and control. Americans must also assess the potential for government incompetence, massive bureaucracy, corruption (such as with the recent economic crisis bailouts), and authoritarian oppression.

For more discussion on illegal immigration, see my essays Illegal Immigration as a Social Problem, Part I, and Part II, as well as Response to Michael Bloomberg. To read more about civil rights and neo-racism, see my essays Refocusing Civil Rights, and Civil Rights' Empty Nest.

Again, no one can argue with the true meaning of the Golden Rule. If everyone followed this standard, then the world would be a wonderful place. As usual, however, the difficulty with Obama's message is beneath the surface where the stirring and muddling happens. The Golden Rule, when used as a sort of worldwide religious doctrine, is too generic, minimizing, or neutralizing. Rather than serving as a spiritual maxim, it seems to state an ultimate political correctness or an ultimate expression of extreme multiculturalism. Religions are meshed together, differences are negated, evil is condemned but not really confronted. I do not criticize Obama for attempting to create harmony among the world's religions, and I wish people could hear the Golden Rule with their hearts, but such hearing requires a deeper conversion and commitment to spirituality or morals.

One of the trademarks of Obama's style is that he seems to believe that everyone can be reasoned with. Although all presidents have used the skill of international engagement, Obama attempts a sort of apologetic reasonableness in his approach to world leaders. The sentiment seems to be that self-disclosure, humility, and even self-effacement will endear oneself to one's adversaries. It is as though the tentacles of narcissism reach out in search of the necessary nutrients to feed the incomplete self. The narcissism is so extreme that everyone--except Osama bin Laden--is needed to provide reflection of the grandiose self.

For more discussion on religious differences, see my essays Delusion and Worship, and We Do Not All Worship the Same God.

Obama's remarks on disarmament seem to lean toward naiveté and utopianism. Although a world without nuclear weapons may be an ideal that most politicians would agree with, it is not realistic to actively pursue the disarmament of America. Many would agree that America must remain a military superpower and that America should even increase weaponry for self-defense and national security.

A possible underlying belief regarding disarmament of America is that America is not exceptional, that America is not any better or any worse than any other country (well, worse than other countries from the extreme multiculturalist viewpoint). The fact is that the founding and building of America has been a unique 'experiment' in democracy, that America has protected the freedoms of other countries unable to defend themselves from tyranny, that America has given asylum to the world's persecuted, and America is the place where so many want to emigrate.

While Obama has acknowledged American exceptionalism, he also qualifies his acknowledgment by saying that he believes America is exceptional in the same way that other people believe their country is exceptional. The extreme multiculturalist cannot admit to American exceptionalism because it goes against the leveling-off of superior cultures, against the moral equivalence of all misdeeds, and against the pseudo-empathy for the downtrodden as well as for the 'cult of victimhood' (i.e., neo-racism and an artificial civil rights movement). The odd twist in thinking is that while extreme multiculturalists deny the real goodness of America, they seek a fantasy utopia that can never be achieved.

Lately, Obama has changed some of his rhetoric on war and peace. In his Nobel Prize speech, he defended wars of necessity. After the attempted terror attack by the underwear bomber, Obama said he would do whatever it takes to overcome Al-Qaeda. We will have to watch in the days ahead to see if his actions match his words. Obama regarded the Iraq War as unjust, but has always advocated for military action in Afghanistan. While this position has support from both Democrats and Republicans, there is also dissent. The following is a quotation from an article by Abraham H. Miller.

Gone Are the Days of Hope and Change

By now, a little more than one year after President Obama's inauguration, it seems that the hope and change movement was a grandiose figment rather than a substantive political platform. Some people saw this from the beginning; some are coming to this conclusion based on the evidence of the past year. Although it is not too late for Obama to bring a halt to his descent into disservice, such effort would probably require modification of his personality and/or a sense of political self-preservation. Let's look at some of Obama's failures.

Most Americans wanted to give Obama a fair chance to govern America, including those who did not vote for him. Despite disagreement with his views and despite feeling repelled by what appears to be his personality, people hoped America would be a safe and prosperous country under his leadership. Country First. However, the actions of his presidency thus far might find definition in an old song. In 1962, there was a movie entitled, The Days of Wine and Roses. It was about an alcoholic couple. The husband was alcoholic and introduced his wife to a life of drinking. In the end, the wife deteriorated worse than the husband. The movie's theme song by the same title was very popular. The music was written by Henry Mancini and the lyrics by Johnny Mercer.

In a recent interview, Obama almost seemed to hint to Diane Sawyer that he might not seek re-election as president. He said "...the one thing I'm clear about is that I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." What's beneath the surface? If Obama decided not to run again, it could be because, given the above failures, he still has not found a satisfactory narcissist self-reflection. Could it be that his speech in Berlin was his culminating moment? That he has been in a downward drift ever since then because he did not possess the executive competence to turn his words into accomplishments?

Conclusion

Based on all the above excerpts from his speeches, Obama's philosophy of government could possibly be summarized as follows. Generally, his tendencies could be divided between two categories: (1) Re-orientation, and (2) Re-alignment. My definitions of these concepts are below.

Re-orientation: To change what we expect from government and to change the way in which we relate to one another as Americans (i.e., pseudo-empathy as a commonality, an artificial civil rights movement, society as a multicultural and educational collectivity, and an expansion of government services and control).

Re-alignment: To change the way we relate to the world and the way in which the world perceives us as Americans (i.e., politically correct globalism, nuclear disarmament and utopianism, and the end of American exceptionalism--the end of the 'old' America).

Finally, I invite everyone to study President Obama's speeches for themselves. This would be the best way to check my observations and conclusions. It would also be a worthy endeavor to compare and contrast Obama's speeches with those of past presidents and presidential candidates. That way, it would become more clearly evident if Obama's words are common among politicians or if they indeed indicate an intent to fundamentally change how America works. Such a study would also need to include Obama's follow-up actions to his words.

Perhaps the key to understanding Obamian thought is to analyze his words from a pre-determined perspective--not to taint the findings but to unlock the mode of thought and presentation of thought. It has been said that Obama is the first post-racial president. This is not entirely correct. Obama is a president who was elected in a post-racial era of American history. In order to place his presidency into historical perspective, however, it would be more correct to say that he is the first extremely multiculturalist president. And, since he is a black man, this is why people who object to him are accused of expressing their dormant racism: these accusers do not distinguish Obama's race from his multiculturalism. Another area worthy of study would be to figure out the development of and current confusion of post-racialism, multiculuralism, and narcissist personalities in contemporary America.

[NOTE 5: As I was in the process of finishing today's essay, I heard a T.V. news commentator discussing why there are not any (or apparently very few) blacks or minorities involved in the Tea Party Movement. The commentator's conclusion was that the Tea Party Movement is racist, even referring to it as the T.P.K. (i.e., a version of the K.K.K. and, in my opinion, a reference similar to past designations such as Amerikkka and U.S.K.K.A.). This conclusion is misleading and only contributes to neo-racism and the artificial civil rights movement.

So, why are there not more blacks and minorities in the Tea Party Movement? The basics of the Tea Party Movement seem to be anti-socialism and anti-healthcare (at least, in its current form as proposed by Obama). To put these basics in a positive statement, the Tea Party Movement is pro-democracy (a grassroots movement of 'we the people'), pro-capitalism (free-market systems), and they favor limited government and taxation. They regard themselves as defenders of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, we know that Obama's past associates as well as some of his appointed czars have had radical political backgrounds and/or have been involved in controversial activities. The T.V. commentator's conclusion could be the result of confusing racism with the impact of extreme multiculturalism (i.e., the teaching that America is inherently racist, capitalism is oppressive, and people are entitled to government services). Unlike the extremist fringe of the Tea Party Movement, Obama's associates and czars appear to be in the center of things.

Most of the Tea Party Movement participants seem to be Republicans or Independents, while Democrats are increasingly becoming involved. Not only are they dissatisfied with President Obama, but also with any Republican or Democrat who voted for the stimulus bill. This alone should counteract accusations of racism: the focus is on economic security and small government, and the targets of protest are mainstream elected officials.

However, since the Republican Party is mostly white, we might ask why. Or, perhaps more precisely, we might ask why blacks and minorities gravitate toward the Democratic Party. Part of the answer may have its roots in America's history of racism, but to understand the current composition of the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party Movement would require research and analysis beyond the scope of today's essay. To read more about my thoughts on the Republican Party, see my essay Older But Not Wiser Republicans.

My prediction, however, is that any such research would point to the impact of extreme multiculturalism rather than racism. It would point to something very different from Kennedy's words: "There are some who say that communism is the wave of the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin." Those words were not spoken by a multiculturalist. Much has changed since 1963, for good and for bad, but there is still hope that the goodness of America will shine through again.]

[NOTE 6: Some of the quoted speech dates may not be exactly correct. In some instances, it was unclear if the given date was the date on which the speech was delivered or the date on which the speech transcript was posted.] (Written 02/17/10: bibliography available.)

Until we meet again..............stay sane.